Is it racist for a liberal to say "I like Obama, but I'm supporting Hillary because America's not ready to elect a black president?"*
Whether or not it's racist, that kind of attitude betrays a characteristic pessimism and contempt for America that many liberals hold but won't admit. The psychological term is called "projection," where a person attributes oneÂ’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and emotions onto another. Liberals are famous for projecting their own faults, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few closet racists in the Democratic party.
I know it's early, but Hillary still isn't beating Giuliani in head-to-head matchups, and I can't understand why Obama isn't gaining traction with Democrats. In almost every aspect, he's a better candidate for the liberals. Consistent on the war (despite the latest Clinton lie, he never flip-flopped), more likeable, a better speaker, less political baggage, got more integrity, etc., etc. And because he's from a new generation, nominating Obama over Hillary represents a step forward, not a step back.
Plus, if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, I think Obama is the tougher matchup. Let's look at the polling.
Both Hillary and Obama run neck-and-neck against McCain, but I'd give Obama the edge. RealClearPolitics has Obama beating John McCain by 1%, while Hillary loses to McCain by 1.6%. I know, I know, margin of error. But in McCain vs. Obama, McCain has the same problems as Hillary. There's a large swath of people who will never vote for the man (myself included), and his generation represents a step back, not forward.
In other matchups, while Clinton beats Romney convincingly, Obama beats Romney going away. Obama's average lead over Romney is almost 20%, and is 7.1 points higher than Hillary's lead. Actually, even John Edwards polls better against Romney than Hillary does. There's no chance that Romney could ever beat any Democrat in the general election.
Things are changing on the Democratic side, however. In the west and the south, Obama has apparently pulled dead even with Hillary. She still retains a two to one lead in the northeast. With the new über-Tuesday election giving more weight to the big states, it's going to be anybody's race, especially if Obama can take California. Even though I'm voting Republican, I'd so love to see Obama beat Hillary. I hate coronations.
_______________
1
I am on record as having said, a long time ago, that I do not believe Hilary could ever be elected president. I stand by that. Presidential candidates, when it gets close to election time, are scrutinized very closely by that part of the public who normally are not very political. And they are the swing voters.
They will never vote for such a shrill woman.
Posted by: kyle N at March 24, 2007 02:25 PM (b3yka)
2
It's even hard to watch a
spoof of her>
Posted by: annika at March 24, 2007 02:38 PM (WfR6S)
3
It's TSTT, too soon to tell. That's why we have campaigns. The Clintonistas own the levers of power in the D party. O'bama will be the VP candidate if he plays nice. He'll be stupid if he doesn't take that deal, since he probably isn't in a position to win reelection in Illinois against a real candidate.
The Clintons should both be getting out of prison about now. Instead, they're in position to move back into the White House to steal more furniture. It's a mistake to dismiss them, no matter how venal and grating they may be to the sensibilities of anyone who has their eyes open.
Posted by: Casca at March 24, 2007 03:15 PM (2gORp)
4
As one who has been married many times, I have to say I like the idea of a Giuliani White House where the president and the First Lady each have two ex-spouses.
And I still believe John Edwards is the most electable of all three major candidates on the Democratic side. He'll team up with Bill Richardson as his Veep; Giuliani can pick up Mike Huckabee, and it'll be a very interesting battle.
Posted by: Hugo at March 24, 2007 04:09 PM (ApisT)
5
Giuliani does have crossover appeal. Maybe I'm projecting - b/c I calmly accept that no candidate will ever agree with every one of my own beliefs - but I don't think conservatives will stay away from voting for Giuliani, assuming he is the Repub nominee. There are lots of issues, and conservative voters are accustomed to their candidates disagreeing with them on some issues. Giuliani will be no different.
I hear one liberal commenter after another proclaim that conservatives will not vote for Giuliani. I think they are scamming, and/or projecting their own rigidity. They have zero self knowledge. They cannot see it is them who are truly the rigid voters. They cannot see it is them who would vote their abortion views above all else. Every time they scornfully denounce some perception they have about "the religious right", they are opening a window for us to look inside them.
I still love Giuliani. But, I would have to look hard at Fred Thompson also. Things are awfully entertaining for March, 2007.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 24, 2007 05:36 PM (n+fl+)
6
Giuliani with Gingrich could beat anyone the Dem's throw at them.
Can it happen? I don't think so, bu5 I'd go to the wall for that slate.
Posted by: shelly at March 24, 2007 10:59 PM (JQe3J)
7
Giuliani Gingrich would be a great ticket. But anybody who thinks Thompson is the savior is dreaming. Sure, he's a solid conservative, but he can't beat Hillary.
Posted by: annika at March 26, 2007 02:19 PM (zAOEU)
8
Fred Thompson is like the back up QB, he is always the fan's favorite, until he gets on the field.
Posted by: kyle N at March 26, 2007 04:11 PM (frqsE)
9
I'm "anyone", and I'm dreaming of Fred Thompson kicking Hillary's ass. Fred has charisma, and he looks at many issues exactly as I do.
Buuuut, what do I know? I liked George Allen, I like Mitt Romney, and I think Duncan Hunter might someday be me President.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 26, 2007 05:39 PM (n+fl+)
Posted by: gcotharn at March 26, 2007 05:40 PM (n+fl+)
11
Duncan is an honest to goodness white knight. On the downside, he's from a solid R district, and one doesn't learn political skills running against weak opposition. Sadly, it shows.
Posted by: Casca at March 26, 2007 06:23 PM (2gORp)
12
How about Giuliani and Thompson? I am on record as thinking Giuliani will be the next President, but I haven't really come up with a good VP candidate for him. Thompson would be a good choice in many ways--As a southern Conservative he balances the ticket geographically, and would reassure those Republicans who are worried about Giuliani's social views, he is a serious individual who is respected on both sides of the political divide, etc. Personally, I think a Giuliani-Thompson ticket would be very difficult for the Democrats to counter. OTOH, I wonder if Thompson is serious about running for President, much less willing to consider the second spot, and he has a few stumbling blocks in his past, too.
Posted by: DBrooks at March 26, 2007 08:01 PM (VA3Jg)
13
It is time for Barack to implode. The articles calling attention to his lies in his Selma speech are the beginning of the end.
The Clintons are getting ready to bury him; there will not be enough left of him to get him reelected back to the Senate.
Mark my words; Bronco Bomber is done. Put a fork in him.
Posted by: AntonioVdeLA at March 27, 2007 03:28 AM (JQe3J)
14
Can someone explain to me how Giuliani is a "conservative"?
Posted by: Mark at March 27, 2007 12:12 PM (2MrBP)
15
Mark,
He's not. He is a law and order democrat who supports a womenÂ’s right to choose, gun control because protecting cops is more important to him than some vaporous and childish idea about a "right" to bare arms and he will impose fiscal responsibility unlike spend the spend thrift conservatives. He will, I feel, retreat from the pointless non-war on terror in Iraq and maybe make stabilizing Afghanistan a priority. Nor is he a religious man and the lobbying efforts of the christo-fascist segment of our populace will fall on deaf ears. No ten commandments in his courtrooms, and a great deal of other religious bullshit that permeates our current whorehouse of a Whitehouse. Rudy will not withhold money from clinics that don't preach abstinence, will spend on stem cell research because he doesnÂ’t suffer from that brain lock about protected life beginning at first division of cells. In other words he is neither frightening nor an insult to reasonable people. I received a fund raising letter on behalf of Rudy the other day from a friend who supports him. A wealthy, liberal, NY Jewish lawyer (Doc PomusÂ’s brother) who like most people I know has nothing but distain for the Republican Party and the Imperial Chimp but who is a good friend of RudyÂ’s and thinks highly of him.
So I don't know what you are all wishing for? I would not be happy if he won but neither would I be a tenth as appalled and embarrassed as I am now with this ignorant and inept son of a bitch whose administrationÂ’s biggest challenge, and one that they blow every time, seems to be keeping their lies straight. Goodbye Speedy G.
Posted by: strawman at March 27, 2007 01:02 PM (9ySL4)
16
I will never give up my right to "bare" arms...
Posted by: gcotharn at March 27, 2007 06:22 PM (n+fl+)
17
goth,
Skin cancer, don't forget is not protected by the constutition.
Posted by: strawman at March 28, 2007 01:05 PM (9ySL4)
18
straw,
It's takes real talent to insert falsehoods, distortions, half truths, or angry insults into every sentence. I guess this is the "tolerance" and "compassion" I keep hearing about.
Anyone who still resorts to this mindless "right to choose" slogan without admitting that it's an utterly dishonest and thinly veiled euphemism has not thought much about the topic. Ironically, those who elevate choice into a sacrament are strongly against choice in other matters.
Regarding gun control, COPS SUPPORT the right to BEAR arms. Where gun control is weak, crime tends to be low. Where gun control is oppressive (D.C. and Chicago) crime is high. (See John Lott from University of Chicago who has proven this in two books. See also, "Law of Unintended Consequences.")
To call the Invasion in Iraq a "pointless non-war" could only come from someone who has not followed the Invasion since Day 1 with any honesty or consistency. Despite the many problems (inherent in all wars, by the way) much has also been accomplished.
Regarding stem cell research, Republicans support ADULT stem cell research, which have merely resulted in 72 (or more) treatments, cures, etc. Embryonic stem cells? NOTHING, NADA, ZERO. Have you pondered WHY researchers in embryonic stem cells are begging at the public trough? Because the private sector (investors) knows what you don't: embryonic stem cells are fraught with valid moral problems and are a scientic failure.
When you're not making uninformed comments, you drop rather vicious insults. Your mother must be proud.
I fail to understand what you get from regularly polluting this blog with misinformation and very little independent thought and research. Perhaps you take great pleasure in making consistently invalid, incomplete, illogical statements. If so, you must be approaching orgasm.
Posted by: Mark at March 28, 2007 01:59 PM (2MrBP)
19
Annika, I would support this whole post, except I'm not ready to suppport the views of a woman. I don't feel America is yet ready.
Otherwise I would say that this was a good post.
Posted by: RightWingDuck at March 28, 2007 02:43 PM (pl1ju)
20
Good one Mark, but it is the custom here to ignore the fulsome strawfuck.
RWD, it's always good to meet a brother in the He-Man-Woman-Haters Club.
Posted by: Casca at March 28, 2007 04:24 PM (2gORp)
21
Mark,
You have not heard about tolerance and compassion from me for those who don’t need it The people of Iraq need some but not fools sitting by their keyboards all over this country blowing smoke up each others asses. They need a blow to the side of their heads so the crap can seep out their ears. The world is spinning out of America’s control as the huge populations of China and India are developing a consumer class and we have nothing to sell them. Our influence is diminishing as any bully’s does because a stick is only emblematic of his lack of imagination. “To a man whose only tool is a hammer all problems look like nails” The current and many past administrations have been hobbled by their reliance on the paucity of tools they are willing to bring to bear on the problems we and the world face. We are acting scared and have created a policy out of fear. Grabbing Iraq was the policy of a cabal that feared for the demise of America, saw an opportunity to insert our influence in a part of the world we think is vital to our continued growth and they completely fucked it up. Iraq is now a corrosive canister threatening to explode and spatter its tainted innards around the region and cause deeper and more profound wounds than the WTC and we refuse to open our fist and let go or to at least look for alternate solutions.
Please do not pitch the superior morals crap. You are comfortable watching Iraq dissolve in a pool of blood and tissue at the hands of our military and the Iraqi people yet you insist a woman be compelled against her will to gestate a child because you think not doing so is a trespass against god. What a bull shitter. What do you say to your god on Sundays when He asks you what part donÂ’t you understand of his admonitions about killing and his other clear messages? Pick the ones you like, shuck and jive around the others.
Oh, Mark, please stop thinking about my orgasms, it's gross, man.
Posted by: strawman at March 28, 2007 07:04 PM (9ySL4)
22
Casca's right; sooner or later the attention whore will go ply some other street...
Posted by: shellly at March 28, 2007 08:29 PM (JQe3J)
23
Or, the parasite shall lose its host on May 20th.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 28, 2007 08:58 PM (I0gpu)
24
Egads; just when I thought it safe for the kids to come out and play again.
Lock up the kids and the wives. Break out the assault weapons.
Posted by: shelly at March 29, 2007 07:12 PM (JQe3J)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
